Green New Deal architect says it’s not about climate, it’s about economics

By Guy Page

The Green New Deal isn’t really about climate change; it’s about economic change. So says the man who wrote it: Saikat Chakrabarti, chief of staff of U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York City.

Chakrabarti left AOC’s staff Aug. 2 to lead an advocacy group. The July 12, 2019 Washington Post reported this exchange between then-Chief Of Staff Chakrabarti and another leading climate change activist:

Because Democratic Socialist Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez concocted the notion of a ‘Green New Deal,’ Climate Director Sam Ricketts of the floundering presidential campaign of Washington Governor Jay Inslee sought guidance from her Chief of Staff Saikat Chakrabarti.

‘The interesting thing about the Green New Deal is that it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all,’ Chakrabarti told a dumbstruck Ricketts, whose candidate had made the coming climate apocalypse the center of his pitch to voters.

‘Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?’ said Chakrabarti to his surprised fellow leftist. ‘Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.’

The same goes for United Nations global climate change policy. Dr. Ottmar Endenhofer, a leader of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), told a German magazine in 2010:

One has to say clearly: we are effectively redistributing world wealth through climate policy. That the owners of coal and oil are not enthusiastic, is obvious. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.

U.N. climate policy led to the 2015 Paris Climate Accords, from which President Donald Trump withdrew the U.S. in June, 2017. Meanwhile the state of Vermont remains committed to aggressive carbon reductions, and the 2020 Legislature is expected to consider legislation that will further limit carbon emissions in home heat, transportation, and power generation.

Wikimedia Commons/Carlos Menendez

Vladimir Lenin with a shopping bag

Any Nazi or Marxist with a sense of history has reason to hate and fear the U.S. of A. American capitalism and constitutional government first defeated right-wing National Socialism in WWII, then thrashed left-wing Marxist Socialism in the Cold War. Socialist activists of all stripes loathe its powerful capitalist economy and its Constitution affirming individual rights. For the pure socialist, protection of speech, firearms and property rights are just capitalist tools used to oppress disadvantaged “social” groups, be they national (“Aryan” Nazis), economic (the Marxist proletariat) or identity (gender/ethnic/sexuality etc. of modern socialists).

Despite having lost two 20th century wars, true believers of socialism — like Chakrabarti, apparently — haven’t given up. Some have seized on climate change as the strongest excuse yet for socialism. Neither corporate stockholders nor American voters will move fast enough to rescue the world from climate disaster, GND supporters like Bill McKibben of Ripton say [from his new book “Falter,” pg. 201]. The U.N. will lead the way, but America must do its part and adopt the economic downsizing of the Green New Deal and the unprecedented wealth redistribution of the Paris Climate Accords. Our cherished American consumerism and individual freedom are destroying the world, the Climate Socialists say. They offer the 21st century a choice: survive under socialism or suffer under a climate broken by unrestrained capitalism and individual freedom.

Happy consumers of American freedom and prosperity must ask themselves honestly: what if the socialists are right? What if Marxism — so wrong so often about so much, the greatest source of mass misery the world has ever known — is right this time? Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Are Americans so in love with the Good Life and personal empowerment as to be willfully blind to the threat of impending global disaster? Will our children’s children curse us?

Here are the two fundamental questions that must be answered by Vermont, national and international climate change policy makers:

  1. Is the climate warming, will the effect be disastrous, and is the cause mostly man-made?
  2. If the answer to No. 1 is an unequivocal “yes”, are the Paris Climate Accords and the Green New Deal the best fix? Are there more workable, less disruptive strategies?

Political prejudice and wishful thinking cannot answer Question No. 1 — only objective climate science will do. And that’s where it gets frustrating. NASA claims that “Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.” But while 97% of climatologists indeed say humans bear some level of responsibility, they won’t say how much. It could be a lot, or just a little. Americans will need more certainty before they mortgage the national house and give away all they possess to the poor.

Which leads to Question No. 2. Ethical people agree that if humanity is indeed ruining the climate, then humanity should clean up its mess ASAP. But does it follow that the U.S. should radically retool its economy and energy grid while simultaneously giving trillions of its treasure to the world (with a fat cut for the U.N. middleman)? Is that really the best solution?

It’s a fact: the 14-page GND bill introduced Feb. 9 by Chakrabarti’s boss reads like a socialist wishlist. Labor unions, trade rules, wage standards, “border adjustments,” all overseen by a government with unprecedented power — it’s all the stuff of Bernie Sanders’ fondest dreams. And say bye-bye to fossil fuels. The GND insists on “meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources.” Article Six of the Paris Climate Accords commits all signatories to “the use of internationally transferred mitigation outcomes towards nationally determined contributions.” That’s Diplo-Speak for “rich countries give trillions of dollars to developing countries.” Not surprisingly, the majority of the world’s nations love the idea.

Talk about a one-two punch. America simultaneously downsizes its economy while giving away what little it has left to other countries, while enriching a cut-out organization whose leadership has little love for the USA and many of its allies — most notably, Israel. Many Americans would see this plan as a recipe for national disaster — and perhaps even conclude that disaster is in fact the goal.

What else could be done? To increase carbon-free power, America could double-down on existing zero-carbon, high-energy output generators like hydro and nuclear power, while building wind and solar power when and where it makes economic sense. There’s no need to duplicate the top-down failure of renewable-crazy Germany, which hasn’t met carbon-emission goals and has been forced to build new coal-burning plants. The U.N. might want to first try “geoengineering” — taking direct action to cool the globe by (for example) seeding clouds with harmless sulphur, as National Geographic reported.

But for Paris and GND supporters, it’s their way or the highway. Anyone who objects is labeled a “climate denier” or worse. Americans need to ask: where is the GND/Paris highway going? And is there a better way to get there?

Guy Page is affiliated with the Vermont Energy Partnership; the Vermont Alliance for Ethical Healthcare; and Physicians, Families and Friends for a Better Vermont.

Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons/Carlos Menendez
Spread the love

13 thoughts on “Green New Deal architect says it’s not about climate, it’s about economics

  1. These people will take a piece of horse manure and call it chocolate candy. Their cult followers will eat it and go mmmm good chocolate. You can’t trust anything they say.

  2. Not climate, economics? Now these people are stupider than first thought. Prey tell what economic benefits are derivered by eliminating air travel for example. AOC and her ilk would be the laughing stock if they were Republicans. Heaven forbid.

  3. Just like you can lead a thirsty horse to water but you can’t make it drink, you can’t lead a Progressive to a universally fact based and common sense solution but you can’t make it understand. I’m a firm believer in all matter is binary. Therefore, there are those who are firmly rooted in their Progressive beliefs and those who cannot understand how those beliefs square up with the Founding Fathers’ beliefs that set the corner stones of our great nation. Nonetheless, this is our world and we have the duty and obligation to our Founders to teach our children our Founders’ beliefs as well as what Progressives believe . . .draw the contrast by exposing the historical records of both concepts . . .and let the chips fall where they may. What passes for “education” today is clearly indoctrination to a unnatural, non-binary, atheistic, destructive social environment. The destruction of innocent lives we see at these shootings is a direct result of a sickness that sees no remedy.

    • Keep in mind that George Washington shot 3 men for desertion at Valley Forge because they were out looking for boots.The men there stayed in crude lean to’s exposed to terrible winter cold.Meanwhile Washington stayed in a manor house with all the comforts of the time.

      It was claimed that George Washington owned more slaves than any other in the colonies.To that claims that it was Martha Washington,Georges wife that actually owned the slaves.

      While many ideas of the founding fathers should be held in high regard remember that these are just the words of men and not from almighty God himself.Also keep in mind that it was greed and money that sparked the Revolution.

      Same as it ever was- David Byrne Talking Heads

      • Greed and money are always the reasons for revolution. One person generally wants the other persons money.

        For the longest time weren’t families of African descent naming their children Washington, as upon his death he set them free?

        Wasn’t Washington the first man to give up a position of power a peaceful transition?

        Nobody is saying the man is perfect, no man is, but he’s certainly accomplished some wonderful things. It’s so easy to tear down any human being, it’s really no challenge at all, as we’re imperfect, but in our doing we miss the greatness.

        • Agreed,but nobody ever speaks of the bad things.The mural under the Capital Dome makes him look as if he was a god.
          So c’mon,let’s get real about these founding father rich men.

  4. Great article, there is so much we can do to better our environment, yet it’s never part of the “Green New Deal” tool box because it was never about the environment. We could instantly reduce fuel consumption by 50%, but our regulations prevent us, it would be win win, less pollution more money in the pockets of consumers, course,that would be counter to the new world order pimps, they want the money, like any good Marxist.

    Of the 32 climate models, 31 done by UN ” scientists”, all of which fail epically to model real life, but make for great political theatre and mas hysteria. Interestingly the Russians have a climate model that works, they might understand science better than many!

    give me all your money and we’ll save the world, pretty much sums up their plan, they are knocking on your front door for money, the “carbon tax”. As one reader so eloquently said, “get off my lawn!”

    • “give me all your money and we will save the world”

      But, BIG BUT, they want all the money AND your entire personal freedom. Voting socialist is voting for bureaucratic authority to make every decision for you, while taking all but pocket change from your “income”. Bureaucratic authority will also determine whether you need restraint, jail, sanction, shaming ……. More!!

  5. I submitted a comment here that has not been published. There was nothing offensive about it; it supported Mr. Page’s piece. It has a hyperlink reference – is that why it wasn’t published?
    All of this is hyperlinks … I commented on another piece (without a link) and it published immediately. I really wondering why my comments are being prevented at vtdigger.

    [EDITOR’S NOTE: Comments with more than one hyperlink are held for moderation for cyber safety reasons.]

  6. According to NOAA’s best ground based data (USCRN), we’re not warming –

    https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2019/08/23/climate_alarmists_foiled_no_us_warming_since_2005_110470.html
    and the UAH satellite data shows virtually the same.

    Here’s quite a good piece about communism and the environmentalists including excellent scientists – Freemon Dyson, Richard Lindzen, Judith Curry, Willie Soon … –

    https://www.theepochtimes.com/chapter-sixteen-the-communism-behind-environmentalism-part-ii_2786362.html

  7. Saikat being a true Marxist indeed was looking at the aspect of economic control by instilling
    fear through the warming hoax and had acquired the perfect mouth piece ocrazio cortex..

    She was the younger generations perfect little twitterette who would draw a hold spellbound the mush minds of the coming generations. The would believe her over the old fogies who
    are responsible for letting the warming grow. What i for the life of me can’t figure out is Why he jumped ship from the ocazio team.. He must have something big up his sleeve and it’s not something good for America…

Comments are closed.